Atrocious AI-Written Tests
Atrocious AI-written tests Sep 29, 2026 I stopped reviewing tests. It's too tempting when there are 10,000 other lines to review. But recently I got a failing test after changing a comment in a source file.
- ▪Atrocious AI-written tests Sep 29, 2026 I stopped reviewing tests.
- ▪It's too tempting when there are 10,000 other lines to review.
- ▪But recently I got a failing test after changing a comment in a source file.
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 6,772 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Gruhn |
| Canonical URL | https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-09-29/ |
| Publication time | Tue, 29 Sep 2026 00:05:36 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-09-29T02:39:29.193Z |
| Last seen | 2026-09-29T02:39:29.193Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | HFus_oIMjN4A · 1 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Atrocious AI-written tests Sep 29, 2026 I stopped reviewing tests. It's too tempting when there are 10,000 other lines to review. But recently I got a failing test after changing a comment in a source file. I had to see what on earth these tests are doing that we're running all day, every day. That particular test was scanning source files with a regex for the keyword "wall-clock". My bad for using that in a comment. Apparently, a certain "wall-clock error" was retired at some point. I guess we want to make sure it's not re-introduced? it("no source emits wall-clock error text", () => { const sourceFiles = [ /* ... */ ]; for (const path of sourceFiles) { const content = readFileSync(path); expect(content).not.toMatch(/wall.?clock/i); } }); At least that test has "code coverage".
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Gruhn.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Gruhn
